Creation Triumphs Over Evolution Introduction Definitions are a good place to begin. What is "evolution"? When the evolution versus creation debate started in the 1800s, the ground rules were clear. At that time the issue was plain and simple. Everybody knew Genesis recorded all the cattle, creeping things and beasts of the earth reproduced "after his kind." There was the "dog kind;" there was the "horse kind." A "specie" was understood by all to be a "Genesis kind." The question was -- Did a one-cell living organism evolve in complexity from one Genesis kind to another Genesis kind and finally culminate in humankind? Now evolutionists have changed the rules. They changed "specie" to refer to minute classifications of possible variation within the Genesis kind. After decades of experimentation, scientists have produced many exotic varieties of fruitflies. Each variety has been designated a "specie." As a result, some claimed they proved evolution from one specie to another. But it remained self-evident that all the numerous varieties were still fruitflies. What they did prove was a sort of "micro-evolution" within a Genesis kind. A change from one Genesis kind to another Genesis kind -- a macro-evolution -- was not demonstrated. This variation within a specie, a Genesis kind, is now what is commonly referred to as "evolution" and applied to validate Darwinism. Unfortunately, most evolutionists who make these spectacular claims of evidencing evolution are the popular writers of books and articles for the general public and our schools. Jonathan Weiner's book, the Beak of the Finch: A Story of Evolution in our Time, is a case in point. Weiner wrote about his time in the Galapagos Islands with two scientists who study finches. Darwin had made many of his observations on the same island. These observations became the basis of his book, The Origin of Species. The distinctive characteristic of what has come to be known as "Darwin's finches" is that their beaks change up to five percent in size from time to time due to environmental changes. A New York Times book review (May 15, 1994) of Weiner's book began by degrading Biblical creation advocates for not being aware of the overwhelming proof for evolution that had been discovered. The review then praised Weiner for demonstrating that evolution is not just a theory about changes that occurred in the remote past, but a process that we can watch because it is going on all around us all the time. However, the ironic twist about the "Darwin's finches" saga is that Charles Darwin, who first discovered variations within the finches at the Galapagos Islands, did not himself use this beak variation factor as a proof of his evolution theory. Why? This variation was only the minimal micro-evolution changes within a fixed Genesis kind or specie. Darwin's evolutionary theory not only requires numerous genetic changes within a Genesis kind, but an evolving from one Genesis kind to another. For example, a fish would eventually become the progenitor for a horse somewhere down the line. On the other hand, how reasonable for a master-mind Creator to design fixed classifications of species with genetic possibilities for variation within its kind. Science validates this rigidity between true Genesis-kind species. If evolution claims changes from one specie to another specie, the theory cannot be proved by simply redefining what a specie is! Chapter One Molecular Evidence - Darwinist Confirm God Created Man With the enormous advances in biochemistry, a relatively new discipline is being developed by evolutionists. The principal molecular components of the "biological cell" are proteins -- which consist of a long chain of amino acids in a specific sequence -- and the molecular sequences of the DNA and RNA molecules. Different techniques are employed to measure the divergency in these molecular sequences. Accordingly, biochemists are classifying species and larger groups by their degree of similarity at the molecular level. But the validity of these classifications so obtained is a point of controversy even among evolutionists. Darwin Caught in a Mousetrap While Darwinists were playing games with biochemistry, Michael Behe confronted them with a challenge that has left them reeling. This greatest scientific challenge yet to Darwinism was capsulated in a Christianity Today article as follows: During the fall of 1996, a series of cultural earthquakes shook the secular world with the publication of a revolutionary new book, Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. The reviewer in the New York Times book review praised Behe's deft analogies and delightfully whimsical style, and took sober note of the book's radical challenge to Darwinism. Newspapers and magazines from Vancouver to London, including Newsweek, The Wall Street Journal, and several of the world's leading scientific journals, reported strange tremors in the world of evolutionary biology. The Chronicle of Higher Education, a weekly newspaper read primarily by university professors and administrators, did a feature story on the author two months after his book appeared. The eye-catching headline read, "A Biochemist Urges Darwinists to Acknowledge the Role Played by an Intelligent Designer." [1] With his book realizing multiple printings, Behe is popular on the university-speaking circuit. In a typical lecture, Behe projects on a screen his favorite quote by Darwin from The Origin of Species: If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. [2] Behe takes on Darwin's challenge by asking, "What type of biological system could not be formed by 'numerous, successive, slight modifications'? Well, for starters, a system that has a quality that I call irreducible complexity."[3] Next, Behe flashes on the screen his hallmark illustration of "irreducible complexity" -- a mousetrap! After observing that all five parts of the trap are simultaneously essential for performance, Behe adds: You need all the parts to catch a mouse. You can't catch a few mice with a platform, then add the spring and catch a few more, and then add the hammer and improve its function. All the parts must be there to have any function at all. The mousetrap is irreducibly complex. [4] Next Behe explores the ultra-complex world of molecular machinery and cellular systems. He describes the chemical chain reaction that gives rise to vision, details the elegant but complex structure of the whiplike cilium with which many kinds of cells are equipped, and then observes the extremely complicated mechanism by which blood is formed (see Appendix). Behe's logical and eloquent conclusions are summarized: To Darwin, the cell was a "black box" -- its inner workings were utterly mysterious to him. Now, the black box has been opened up and we know how it works. Applying Darwin's test to that ultra- complex world of molecular machinery and cellular systems that have been discovered over the past 40 years, we can say that Darwin's theory has "absolutely broken down."[5] With that observation of cell complexity, Darwin is caught in Behe's mousetrap! Behe presses his point further: As you search the professional literature of the last several decades looking for articles that have been published even attempting to explain the possible Darwinian step-by-step origin of any of the systems, you will encounter a thundering silence. Absolutely no one -- not one scientist -- has published any detailed proposal or explanation of the possible evolution of any such complex biochemical system. And when a science does not publish, it ought to perish.[6] Behe's only conclusion is that everywhere we look inside the cell, evidence is staring scientists in the face that suggests the systems were directly designed by an intelligent agent. The only answer mustered by evolutionists to Behe is: You're giving up too soon. Biochemistry is in its infancy. These systems were discovered just 20 or 30 years ago. Within the next few years, we may begin to figure out how all these systems evolved. Behe's ready reply is: Actually, many of these systems have been fully understood for 40 years or more, and not one explanation has been published offering a plausible scenario by which they could have evolved. Any science that claims to have explained something, when in fact they have published no explanation at all, should be brought to account.[7] The "intelligence" behind such marvelous "irreducibly complex systems" in nature, of course, is God. How infinitely more complex the human cell, the eye or the brain -- than a mousetrap! How wonderfully and poetically the Psalmist expressed appreciation of his Intelligent Creator who engineered the most beautiful of systems: Thou it was who didst fashion my inward parts; thou didst knit me together in my mother's womb, I will praise thee, for thou dost fill me with awe; wonderful thou art, and wonderful thy works. Thou knowest me through and through: my body is no mystery to thee, how I was secretly kneaded into shape and patterned in the depths of the earth. Thou didst see my limbs unformed in the womb. .day by day they were fashioned, not one of them was late in growing. How deep I find thy thoughts, O God, how inexhaustible their themes![8] Darwinists Prove Man Was Created A recent study by evolutionary biologists Dorst (Yale), Akashi (University of Chicago) and Gilbert (Harvard) disproved the premise of evolution. Their study left evolutionists reeling. In their quest for the ancestry of humans, these scientists probed for genetic differences in the Y chromosome of 38 men of different ethnic groups living in different parts of the world.